As I was watching returns last night, I recalled a conversation I had with Jeff Frazee and another prominent beltway r3volutionary about three years ago. The topic was the US House of Representatives and how to create a functional Constitutionalist base within that body. We figured out that over 90% of the House votes (in 2006) were determined by less than 30 members. For me, the story is not the Republican victory, but the Constitutionalist victory. I'll need a couple of days to determine how many seats we actually won, but the foot is in the door.
The same holds for the Senate. Paul, Johnson, Lee, Rubio, Toomey, and Demint won. There is now a TEA Party caucus that can prevent any legislation from coming to the floor. I have been arguing that this is actually a better outcome than an outright win in the Senate. Why? Republicans have achieved functional control of legislation without making a Republican Senate the President's straw man. In other words, Obama can't blame the "do-nothing" Senate for his legislative failures and Republican successes. In two years, 21 Democrats are up for re-election, but only 12 Republicans. By losing now, Republicans created an opportunity to score a filibuster-proof in 2012.
I am also encouraged by the TEA Party candidates that lost. That might seem like a stunning statement, but the reality is that not all candidates are created equally and the class of 2010 TEA Party losers richly deserve those losses. Of the three TEA Party candidates that we know have lost (O'Donnell, Angle, Buck), two made their Christian Constructionist views prominent in their campaigns (the Earth is 10,000 years old, the Bible is literally true, etc.). Buck lost the election in Colorado ten days ago when he declared that homosexuality is more like the flu than a function of biology on a Sunday talk show.
I respect their right to their views, but the reality is that social conservatism is a drag on the message of restrained government, lower debt and taxes, and more personal liberty. By making these views part of their campaigns, they proved the importance of message disipline. I hope, regardless of our personal religious views that we recognize that those views should inform our personal values, but not our macro-messaging.
Finally, I want to note that some prominent neo-con TEA Partiers are also heading to defeat including John McCain's pet, Jesse Kelly in AZ, and Joe Miller in AK. The hypocrisy of opposing spending and big government at home while maintaining a foreign military empire is a challenge that we must answer.
For complete coverage of the election, my go-to sites are: Real Clear Politics and National Review. To track liberty candidates, check out the RLC's results page.
- Blog Policy
- Login or register to post comments











I think you're being too optomistic. Rubio, a neoconservative, and others that are "Tea Party" are long-established Republicans that like most politicians make empy promises.
This...
"By losing now, Republicans created an opportunity to score a filibuster-proof in 2012."
I hope you're not saying this is a good thing. =/
When I refer to the Republican Party generally, I am referring to a tool, not a person, group of people, or shadowy network. I have long argued against the popular complaint that the Republican Party is stupid, evil, etc. The party is a tool to be used. It's value is commensorate with the values of the 200 or so people that actually control the structure. So a Republican majority isn't an inherently good thing, but if it is used properly (it's up to us to elect Constitutionalists and hold them accountable), then it is a necessary condition for the kind of reforms that we all support.
I don't think Don is too optimistic at all. He didn't say we will immediately restore the constitutionally restrained republic in 2012, but that there is an influential swing contingent in each chamber. As a movement, this is a great start.
That said, we'll see about Rubio, et al. It's up to us (the liberty movement) to hold their feet to the fire. Perhaps that sounds like a Pollyanna-ish sentiment, but the extent to which they campaigned on liberty is the extent to which they can be effectively threatened (politically) if they substantially violate those principles.
Having worked previously with Rubio when he was a House Speaker, the man is a neo-con and in the mold of Jeb Bush, who if you recall, signed the PNAC letter for war in Iraq in 1997. Though he tried to eliminate property taxes in Florida, Rubio will not vote for liberty when it comes to social and foreign policy.
I would say Joe Miller is a much better ally, and the language on his site on National Security parallels the language on Rand Paul's website.
but I will defer until we see what he does. He has vocally attacked the Republican Party establishment mercilessly on the campaign. I've made big changes in my persective over the years, I'm willing to give Marco Rubio a little time to prove that he has too.
Fair Enough.
After all was said and done in this election I feel there was a new excitement and mood from the newly elected Republicans. However, I also felt a real understanding and humility from Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, that what took place was not "Pro-Republican" and they had a massive job to undertake and Promises to the People to keep and if they forgot that then they will be the next to be gone.
Originally from Florida, I was excited and jealous of what I believe they can and will accomplish. With the new leadership and a true CEO at the helm of the state Florida is poised to become a economic powerhouse while other states continue to become welfare recipients. Imagine how many large companies Rick Scott could entice to move to Florida where they have beautiful year round weather, no state income tax, new tax breaks, lower cost of living. New York and California are going to have a hard time keeping businesses from being lured out of their states due to government restraints.